ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. JANTA TRAVELS (P) LTD., NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 113/DEL/2015Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 July 2016AY 2010-114 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal in limine due to low tax effect. The Tribunal also dismissed the assessee's cross-objection, finding that share application money was correctly excluded from investments for calculating disallowance under Section 14A.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal against an ITAT order. The tax effect was below the prescribed limit for appeals. The assessee filed a cross-objection challenging a disallowance made under Section 14A.

What were the issues?

Whether the Revenue's appeal should be dismissed due to low tax effect. Whether share application money can be considered an investment for the purpose of disallowance under Section 14A.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 268A,Section 14A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “SMC-2”: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI P.K.BANSAL

For Appellant: Shri Abhijit Roy, FCA
For Respondent: Shri Sandeep Kumar Mishra, DR Assessee by :, Shri Abhijit Roy, FCA
Hearing: 12/07/2016Pronounced: 14/07/2016

O R D E R This is an appeal filed by the Revenue. Admittedly the tax effect in this appeal by the Revenue is less than Rs.10 lakhs. 1.1. In terms of CBDT Circular No.21/2015 dated 10th December,2015, F.No. 279/Misc./142/2007-ITJ(Pt.) read with S.268 A of the Income Tax Act 1961, this appeal by the Revenue should have been withdrawn or should not have been pressed by the Revenue.

2.

In view of the above this appeal by the Revenue is dismissed in limine. CO No. 234/Del/15 3. Now coming to the CO filed by the assesee is concerned I noted that the Ld. CIT(A) has sustained the disallowance u/s 49 Rule 8D out of the disallowance amounting to Rs. 78,628/- out of the disallowance made by the AO at Rs. 19,35,470/-. I noted that the said disallowance has been sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) by taking the half percentage of the average value of the investment amounting to Rs. 1,05,59,783/-. Ld. DR before me vehemently contended that in view of the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT (2012) 247 CTR (Delhi) 162 and that of Mumbai Bench in the case of Rainy Investment Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT and the said decisions of this Tribunal as well as the Chennai Bench of the Tribunal the share application money can not be regarded as an investment in shares or an asset yielding tax free income and neither it is capable of yielding any tax free income. Therefore it cannot be treated as part of the total assets for computing disallowance u/s 14A .

I noted from the order of the Ld. CIT(A) page 7 that the CIT(A) while computing the average value of the investment at Rs. 1,05,59,783/- under Rule 8D under clause B has already reduced out of the total investment of Rs. 24,10,08,238/- share application money amounting to Rs. 23,02,33,300/-. In view of this facts the ground taken by the assessee does not have any leg to stand. I therefore dismiss the ground taken by the assessee.

4.

In the result the appeal of the revenue as well as cross objection filed by the assesee stand dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 14/07/2016.

More judgments on Section 268A

All 3,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 268A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →